from the oh-really-now? dept

It hasn't been a good time for NSA defenders lately, with a court calling the program unconstitutional and the White House's own "independent task force" highlighting serious problems with the programs, and recommending some fairly major changes. This has resulted in many of us suggesting that, at this point, it's kind of crazy to argue that Ed Snowden did something wrong, and rather he should be welcomed back as a hero. After all, he exposed a secret program that has been called unconstitutional. Isn't that the very definition of a whistleblower?

However, it seems the visceral hatred of Snowden has only ratcheted up a notch with two top former officials flat out saying that Snowden should be hanged. This is oddly specific (and ridiculously antiquated). First up, we have former CIA director (under Bill Clinton), James Woolsey who said Snowden should be hanged:

"I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” said Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."

"I must say absent some other important piece of information, it has to be one of the dumbest things that I've seen in a long time, to be speculating about it publicly, even if they are contemplating a deal with Snowden some kind of amnesty," Bolton said. "The last thing that people ought to be doing is speculating about it publicly. It will inevitably make it a political football and enhance Snowden's bargaining power."

Bolton continued, "My view is that Snowden committed treason, he ought to be convicted of that, and then he ought to swing from a tall oak tree. But even if you don’t believe that, if you’re gonna say anything publicly, that is closer to what you should be saying to enhance our own bargaining leverage."

The similarity of both comments -- both attacking the idea of amnesty, and focusing on the very specific punishment they're salivating over concerning Snowden, certainly hints at a series of insane talking points being passed around among extreme security state apologists. I expect we'll see more like this. I'm curious, though, how either of these guys can continue making these claims given everything else that's been happening.

Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.

Don't you at all have any notion how crazy are the neo-cons who invented the Iraq and Afghan wars out of nothing? I guess most just people just can't believe in evil... As you've never shown any doubt even for Google's press releases, I don't have much hope for your discernment on anything of international scale.The Rich are not ideologues: any "-ism" is fine by entrenched elites (especially American "conservatives" who favor fascism) so long as THEY are entitled to live off laborers in practical feudal-ism.

Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.

i cannot believe that people who are or were supposed to be of such high intelligence as to be in charge of so elite security forces could actually come out and say such utter bollocks! are they really serious? do they really think that what he has done, in informing everyone of what America has been/is doing is a more heinous crime than what they have been doing? if anyone wanted hanging, it's those that, under the cover of 'finding terrorists' have betrayed the world, whilst saving no one!!

There are no talking points

"The similarity of both comments -- both attacking the idea of amnesty, and focusing on the very specific punishment they're salivating over concerning Snowden, certainly hints at a series of insane talking points being passed around among extreme security state apologists."

It says more about the mindset inherent to those whose jobs involve some form of patriotism / jingoism.

This week on extreme security state apologists....

This week on extreme security state apologists, how to demonize someone who made your department look like an overreaching power hungry monster that likes to crap all over the constitution... after the break we have Martha Stewart on showing us all how to tie a hang mans noose and add some red ribbons to keep the bureaucratic lynching festive during this time of year.

“He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."

This actually makes a great deal of sense from their point of view. Snowden is a traitor... not to the country, but to the NSA and their agenda. And the jury of peers they're talking about are his former superiors and ex-coworkers in the NSA.

A whistleblower like Snowden would've been welcomed with open arms by the US if he was giving out such information on the KGB back during the Cold War. Instead we have a former KGB colonel turned President admiring our surveillance state. Way to go Team USA......

Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.

Do you know how many lives could have been saved if those fricking idiots over there hadn't chosen to start killing each other? If they want to go to war and start killing each other, why is it anyone else's business to intervene?

Anybody know Snowden's bitcoin address?

I believe in rewarding heros with money.

I want to send him something for Russian hookers and...Fanta or something. (I'd say beer, but it it seems he doesn't drink.) He should get some first-class girls who'll give him a good time for Christmas.

As a patriotic American, I feel Snowden has done my country a tremendous service (given us a shot at taking it back from the scum who run it now).

I feel bad for the guy, with all the crap being thrown his way, and being away from his family and girlfriend at Christmas. As a 1st class American hero, he deserves to have some fun. Indeed, he should live like a goddamned king.

So - where do I send the $$$? (Not just any old bitcoin address, please, but one verifiably Snowden's.)

Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.

"...the attempted colonisation of Afghanistan by the Taliban...". You seem to have forgotten about the foreign invasions, first by Russia then by America."...the genocidal nightmare that was Saddam Hussein". So when should we invade China because of the genocidal nightmare that is the Chinese government?

Not everybody in Syria has "chosen" to be involved in that war, despite how you put it.

And there are many things that are supposedly none of our business: starvation in Africa, India and China, homelessness in our own countries, torture and oppression of the worst kinds in all sorts of totalitarian regimes, etc. To pretend otherwise would be to succumb to typical right-wing, isolationist, "poverty is not our problem and you can't take my property away from me" thinking. It's all too easy to forget that serious crises, including pointless civil wars that can be stopped, happen all the time on this planet while we live comfortable, quiet lives back home and get high on capitalism.

I have not forgotten about the crimes of the Soviet Union. And neither have I forgotten about the U.S.'s pushing back against the Taliban's colonisation and oppression of every conceivable minority of Afghanistan. No, I have not forgotten. What is your point?

And even if I WAS being hypocritical here, by the way, by saying "no" to putting pressure on China (what I do say is "yes" to putting pressure on China to stop its authoritarianism, considering the country's size and what scale of pressure that would be most moral), you would have only proved that I was a hypocrite, and not whether taking out Saddam Hussein after 30 years of fascist oppression was the right thing to do.

"I think giving him amnesty is idiotic,” said Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead."

Death penalty

Well, they are from one of the few somewhat developed countries which still have the death penalty. It is no surprise some of them feel it is acceptable to murder someone they consider to be a criminal.

Re:

Those calling for the murder of Snowdon should be the ones with the pressure around their necks, maybe charging them with the crimes they have committed and supported then just hanging them is the only way that people will get their privacy back. Lets do it, charge them and let them swing, or instead of wasting the time and effort that goes into hanging someone lets just put them against a wall and have them shot to death.

prosecute

Talk about killing the messenger.

Is violating the constitution illegal in the USA? I have to wonder. Can someone be prosecuted in a state or a federal court for violating the 4th or the 1st amendment? Is there a law on the books with sentencing guidelines?

Of course, you would need a prosecutor to bring the case. It seems that in the USA, government officials can violate the constitution with impunity. They eagerly pursue whistleblowers such as Snowden, while they ignore the corruption in their own house.

Re: prosecute

If the government is found to have violated the constitution, the court basically tells them to not do it anymore. There is no punishment for them. On the other hand, if us peons have been found in violation of the law, we get punished. Good ol' Amerikkkan justice.

Contempt?

If a trial was on-going, those sort of comments would presumably be treated as contempt of court or similar. Why should any pre-trial comments (assuming there may ACTUALLY be a trial!) be treated any differently? It serves to pre-judge and bias any court or jury.

A simple note to Mister Snowden

Watch the sky dude.

The UberVolken are starting to fantasize that killing you will end the problems that have arisen because of their new public image - Global Voyeurs with a license to Steal - (which is due entirely to your continual exposure of their criminal and immoral activity, through the disclosure of their own private words.)*1

Because they do not know better, they must and will try.

*1(An act that I personally believe should win Mister Snowden a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.)

Curious Blue

"I'm curious, though, how either of these guys can continue making these claims given everything else that's been happening."

Curious?

Its not like anything you, or I, or anyone they lie to, could possibly interfere with their plans, their actions, their intentions, or their claims. They do not really work for us anymore, even though you probably think the law says otherwise.

Politicians merely manufacture the rhetoric from which history will be constructed, and so they create, in andvance, the verbiage which will be recorded, repeated and used by authority to officially prove the necessity of their secret actions and private intentions, should they get caught, or not.

Because only these "talking points" will ever be recorded for use by the official "recorders of events" they become factual reality, by default, due to there being no contrary commentary for the next generation - and much of this generation - to make comparisons with.

It is a politician's job to manufacture and disseminate these false events, causes, and reactions, and government's job to insure that only these 'falsified records' make it into postery's tale.

You might, for instance, note that ALL of their public testimony follows a recognizable set of guidelines for consistency, especially in the face of obviously contrary evidence and that every so often one of the major players: NYT, CNN, ETC., suddenly publishes a bizarrely misinformed (and mis-informing) article that basically gathers all the recent talking points into a nice neat bundle, and then presents the resulting conclusions, as easily repeated proven fact.

Re: Re:

I agree. Everyone involved in these unlawful constitutional violations should be put to death for treason. They violated their oath of office in the worst possible way. It would send an adequate message to future would be tyrants. Edward Snowden is a hero for revealing everything he has.

Re: prosecute

Re: Bolton

Funny thing is, if I'm reading that right, saying stuff like that is exactly opposite what they should be saying to 'enhance [their] own bargaining power', because if they're calling for the death of someone for making them look bad and exposing their illegal/quasi-legal actions, now any country out there would have a solid argument against deporting Snowden or handing him over to the US, as they could argue that they'd be sending him to his death.

With a bunch of countries already less-than-trilled about the NSA/USG's activities that have been exposed by Snowden, add the death threats into the equation and you've got a reason for other countries to refuse to deport Snowden, and a politically acceptable excuse to back it up.

Re:

Re: Re: Bolton

"...and you've got a reason for other countries to refuse to deport Snowden."

Maybe there is some sort of political, diplomatic, or legal "brownie points" for the US Federal Assassins, if Snowden is no longer a US citizen when they "accident" him.

Maybe the Fed's attitude till now was based on "...what would the Evil Empire do in this situation..." (as everyone expects they would), but secretly they want Snowden to "defect", or gain asylum in a foreign land, so they can take him out as procedure demands, and "put it all behind them".

Perhaps if Snowden was no longer a US citizen, the legal ramifications of such an assassination, would be far less embarrassing, than if he was still a US citizen.

Perhaps....

These spooks are so perversly deviant that its impossible to see the plan till the day after they put it into action.